/lit/ - Literature

>>12210915
Only autists understand Kant

>>12210955
Correct. Any autistic person can understand Kant, provided that they are sufficiently interested in Rationalist philosophy. No neurotypical person will ever be able to understand Kant.

>>12210983
yay, autistic masterrace unite!

>>12210955
I should be fine then. Thanks anon!

>>12211004
I'd suggest you to at least read Leibniz's Discourse on Metaphysics and Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding prior to diving into Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Most people can comprehend Kant, they just pretend to not get it so they don't have to be uncomforted by thinking that motivations matter as much as actions. Utilitarians are mentally ill.

>>12211066
We're talking about the Critique of Pure Reason here, not the Critique of Practical Reason.

>>12211076
Ouch.

>>12211076
based

>>12210955
if kant is the patron saint of autism who can schizoid spectrum boys turn towards in their dark hours for likeminded relief?

>>12211276
D&G

>>12211276
Max Stirner

>>12211276
Pessoa

>>12211276
Wittgenstein

REMEMBER

>>12211276
Hegel and Land

>>12211276
Uncle Ted.

>>12210915
You will not understand it since there are sections so opaque that even Kant's mightiest successors could not penetrate therein. Only let the brilliance of his mind shine upon you and be brought into an illumined clarity the likes of which you have never dreamed. It is likely that Kant's perspicuity was so great that even he himself could not bring into clear conceptions the breadth of his thought. Even if you only understand the significance of acuteness of the particular questions which first spurred his investigations you will have gained immeasurably.

>>12211519
This is how a brainlet sees Kant.

>>12211576
Would you mind pointing out some of these opaque sections in Kant's Critiques?

>>12210915
Prefaces and Introductions: 110 IQ

Transcendental Aesthetics: 120 IQ

Transcendental Analytic: 130 IQ

Transcendental Deduction (The section in the Transcendental Analytic where Kant demonstrates that the categories of understanding have objective application) : trust me, no one can understand that shit

>>12211903
I have an IQ of 140, and I understood the entire Critique of Pure Reason back when I read it. Unfortunately, I can't remember most of what I read, but I more or less feel like I could guide someone through it.

>>12211865
sorry I haven’t read the book myself

>>12211903
>Transcendental Deduction (The section in the Transcendental Analytic where Kant demonstrates that the categories of understanding have objective application) : trust me, no one can understand that shit
There are 14 year olds that can understand that.

>>12210915
My verbal-linguistic IQ is 130-133.

Reading class assignments, the first time we were assigned Kant, I really struggled, but after much parsing I could sort of understand Him, better than most of the brainlets in my English major who were completely silent during that lesson. When I later picked up one of his books I was able to find a rhythm after a while, but I have to immerse myself in him, and I occasionally visited a professors office hours to try to get help interpreting him.

Don’t feel bad though, the little nigger didn’t know how to end a sentence. He’s literally just bad at writing.

>>12211946
Go on, explain the argument then. Would really appreciate if could put it in a premise/conclusion form :^)

>>12211999
I would also like to add that I now enjoy Kant and find him quite satisfying to reread. Critique of Judgement, especially the parts on aesthetics, really soothe the autistic side of my brain.

>>12210915
>How high does my IQ have to be to understand this?
It doesn't have to be. Kant was a severe autist, and thus his writings and ideology tend to only appeal to severe autists.

>>12212004
The categories of understanding used in judgements are found in the human mind a priori because, given their perfect universal validity, they could not be derived from anything which is known by the means of an individual's experience, for if they were, they could not be objective and universal.
In Kant's own words:
>We have already seen that we are in possession of two perfectly different kinds of conceptions, which nevertheless agree with each other in this, that they both apply to objects completely a priori. These are the conceptions of space and time as forms of sensibility, and the categories as pure conceptions of the understanding. To attempt an empirical deduction of either of these classes would be labour in vain, because the distinguishing characteristic of their nature consists in this, that they apply to their objects, without having borrowed anything from experience towards the representation of them.

>>12212021
I don't find him nearly as bad as he's often made out to be. For me, for me, his style is clear and lucid albeit sometimes a little long winded. If there's anything jarring in his style it's his repetitiveness IMO.

>>12212004
I remember reading somewhere that Peirce had read copr multiple times by that age. I would be very surprised if he didn't understand it.

>>12212059
News needlessly pedantic, repetitive, and uses old vocabulary in new ways without doing a very good job explaining the new definitions he is working with. Heidegger is the same way just a little bit more eloquent.

>>12212048

This doesn't identify what's unique about the Transcendental Deduction - the content of the summary and quote you gave are repeated many times before the Transcendental Deduction, and many times after. What isn't repeated so much outside of the Transcendental Deduction is that the necessary conditions for consciousness *of one's self* are the same necessary conditions as those retired for consciousness *of an external object* known by my self.

Thus my knowledge of such objects, and the universe they interact in, is as secure and intimate to me as my own identity as a thinking consciousness. The unified-ness of external objects along with the continuity of natural laws, and the unified-ness of my self as a single knowing "I, me" along with the continuity of the laws of thinking, are *the same* unified-ness and continuity. I think *this* is the crux of the Transcendental Deduction.

You cannot have consciousness of objects except as simultaneous with consciousness of self. Consciousness just *is* consciousness-of-self-and-objects. Knower and known, subject and object, are inseparably bound together, mutually necessary.

>>12211276
he gel

>>12212199
What I understood from the quote in the screencap you posted is that the being that has awareness (the consciousness) thinks of itself as a being that, given the fact that everything that is known to it is known by the same being, that is, itself, it must itself be one and not many, Since everything that is known to this being is all known to exist together along with the consciousness, reality as it is understood outside must have the same degree of unity by the same principles which govern the inside's self-sameness.
It doesn't mean that the truth which the consciousness derives from its understanding of reality is somehow flawed, distorted, or inaccurate, but instead that it is what the human consciousness is capable of perceiving and interpreting of reality. Therefore, although it might not have a full picture of reality, what it has encountered and closely observed will most likely be well within the confines of what it can think of as truth, and this truth resides all throughout consciousness.

>>12212199
>pic
that was brilliant, i feel with these tough to read philosophers the best strategy is to deconstruct each sentence and read twice

Only people who can't understand or don't have any philosophical perseverance claim Kant is autistic. The depth of his observations of what it is like to think and his ability to verbalize it flies in the face of anyone who claims he is and for autists.

>>12210915
Oh that's cute! My mentally handicapped newphew's favourite philosopher is Kant.

What's the point of sharing ideas in a way in which no-one can understand?

>>12212528
you kant blame the smart one, see what i did there

>>12212528
He really tried. He wrote in several letters that he knew how hard it was to understand the critique. He justified it by saying that 1) he’s not good at explaining 2) he wrote the whole thing in like 5-6 months 3) he was afraid he might die while writing it so he rushed it

>>12212352
autistic doesn't mean dumb

Am I wrong in saying the only truly provocative idea in this book is the noumenal/phenomenal distinction

>>12212199
Was Kant a brainlet?

Imagine being an 18th century autist without internet who invests his whole vitality in ontology that is rendered moot by science 200 hundred years later but still your name is revered by other autists that continue to read your fanfiction. Is he the poster boy of what a retarded dedicated autistic austerity can achieve?

>>12211999
Is that a self-assessment of your verbal IQ or did you have it tested? I'm not calling into question the figures you gave I am just curious about getting tested myself.

>>12212960

>rendered moot by science 200 hundred years later

Cool, how?

>>12211066
Deontology is by no means a form of consequentialism, do you understand philosophy at all?

>>12213853
I believe he may be referring to something like non-euclidean geometry

>>12211066
>so they don't have to be uncomforted by thinking that motivations matter as much as actions.
This seems quite obvious though. I haven't even read Critique of Pure Reason yet

>>12211276
Deleuze or Land

>>12211918
Kek

>>12212320
>What I understood from the quote in the screencap you posted is that the being that has awareness (the consciousness) thinks of itself as a being that, given the fact that everything that is known to it is known by the same being, that is, itself, it must itself be one and not many, Since everything that is known to this being is all known to exist together along with the consciousness, reality as it is understood outside must have the same degree of unity by the same principles which govern the inside's self-sameness
This reminds me of the guy who claimed Shakespeare invented the modern anglo interior mind.

>>12212528
Would you want a engineer to dumb down the plans for an airplane you were going to fly in because you didn't understand airflight?

>>12212320

> the being that has awareness (the consciousness) thinks of itself as a being that, given the fact that everything that is known to it is known by the same being, that is, itself, it must itself be one and not many

Yes, and this one-ness is not necessarily a numerical one-ness (in the way that an individual grain of sand is mathematically single, or a molecule of water is numerically one) but it is rather a one-ness of *function,* a unity of form (in the way that a single wave maintains its form through many molecules of water, or a tornado is a unity of sand-grains *in action* rather than a unity of sand-grains per se (which could just be a heap, and Kant would technically call an "aggregate" rather than a comprehensive unity)).

The reason it's important to emphasize this is that for Kant, we cannot know that the thinker, the soul, is a single, unitary substance; Descartes tried to argue for this, but Kant critiques Descartes' arguments as illusory. We cannot know what our thinking mind is in-itself, we can only recognize the unity of function that appears to us in/as natural experience. This unity of function is logically attributable to our thinking self, but we can't have knowledge penetrating deeper to that thinking self itself.

> reality as it is understood outside must have the same degree of unity by the same principles which govern the inside's self-sameness.

Yes, and "reality as understood outside" is just "reality as appearance." For a mental representation to appear spatially and/or temporally, and to be understood by the logical functions of thinking, is for that mental representation *to be* a real object existing in nature.

> It doesn't mean that the truth which the consciousness derives from its understanding of reality is somehow flawed, distorted, or inaccurate, but instead that it is what the human consciousness is capable of perceiving and interpreting of reality.

Yes. Objective-truth-for-humanity is utterly different from objective-truth-independent-of-humanity AND ALSO the two are completely logically compatible. Demonstrating that this seemingly rigid contradiction is, in truth, not a contradiction is one of Kant's triumphs.

> Therefore, although it might not have a full picture of reality, what it has encountered and closely observed will most likely be well within the confines of what it can think of as truth, and this truth resides all throughout consciousness.

There's nothing that a human can encounter or closely observe apart from the confines of what the human can think of as truth; if we think something is not true, then we cannot also experience it at the same time (maybe we're conscious of experiencing a drawing of the untrue thing, or a dramatic performance or internal fantasy about it). Especially if it is not only empirically untrue, but spatiotemporally and/or logically impossible. The same functions that constitute my mind and its possible experience are common in all human minds.

>>12212588
tell us more about phenomenology and then bypass hidigrrr and on talking about epoche and pyhrro and why back to the greeks is more about shining statues than penetration.

>>12213964
I mean brackets

>>12210983
I work with autistic people and many of them can't tie their shoelaces. Not every autist is like the kid from The Curious Incident

>>12213886

This has been said in the past, but I don't see how it fundamentally undermines Kant's transcendental idealism. What could it not accommodate about pic related, for example?

>>12214094

He's obviously talking about high-functioning ones.

>>12210915
About 85

>>12213953
>This reminds me of the guy who claimed Shakespeare invented the modern anglo interior mind.

>2019-1
>still hasn't swallowed the pill that Shakespeare was a psyop orchestrated by (them)

read anything by Buddha

>>12213527
Not that guy but I had mine tested a few years ago by a psychologist, shit took 3 full 7 hr days to finish (full psychological survey) pretty interesting results, learned a lot about my strengths and weaknesses. I’d be wary of the result of any sort of online test or anything not administered in full length form by someone who knows what they’re doing.

I definitely learned some stuff about myself - verbal iq was 147 but “physical” iq or whatever it is called was like 88 or something ridiculously low relative to verbal. Was pretty interesting as I wouldn’t have guessed that - but makes sense as some things are extremely easy for me, and other things pretty difficult/slow for me. I guess that’s why I’m here at lit and not a diff board.

>>12211918
absolutely based

>>12211276
Mark Fisher

>>12210915
You need to have good note taking skills, or good visual spatial abilities, or good creative skills, but the point is you have to create a model of what you're reading as you're reading it, for the case of Kant.. and only by questioning the model (as specifically and clearly as possible) and deepening your understanding can you actually grasp him

>>12211999

Finally Uni's paid off:

"The concept of the necessary lie; an untruth, is needed to make Kant's moral philosophy practical and defendable. While one could look to Utilitarianism as an answer to Kant's moral philosophy, instead it would be prudent to look at what Kant had to say about the idea of a necessary lie or an untruth. While Kant's moral philosophy was absolutist, his philosophy on the ethics of lying has proven to be a lot more intricate and complex. In his later years, Kant’s perspective changed to better include the concept of the necessary lie, to what he termed an untruth or an Emergency Lie. It was deemed acceptable to tell a lie if it wouldn't aid the unethical. To look back at the murderer scenario from before, now there is a way to lie to the murderer because the murderer is using your honesty as a tool for evil. Consequence and context have now been taken into account, which allow for Kant's moral philosophy to be considered practical and defendable. This Emergency Lie is necessary to avoid corruption or danger. The philosopher Dietrich Benhoeffer in an essay considered the idea that some lies are more representative of truth than the alternative. To be telling a lie that would positively impact the other person regardless of the negative aspect of lying. This situation was what Benhoeffer called the living truth. The living truth is a necessary lie used to express a more important truth in context. The categorical imperative can be assumed now as allowing both of these lies to occur. Instead of pushing for whatever the truth may be, it's asking you to understand what it would mean to tell the truth and with whom you share that 'truth' to."

It's accessible only after sifting through the obtuse phraseology he uses. Truly an autist after my own cold heart

>>12215933
How much does that cost?

Started the introduction to The critique of Pure reason and I inadvertently slipped and dropped it. It was getting interesting. I needed to be really alone to read tho, it was impossible to focus if there were people around, or external noise.